Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-04-05 i e CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 1989 The regular meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on was called to order 1n C1ty Counc11 Chambers by Chairman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Mr. Rullo. ROLL CALL Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1SS1oners Rullo, Suggs, Jessner Absent: Comm1ss1oner F1fe Edward M. Kn1ght, D1rector, Development Serv1ces Also Present: Barry Curt1s, Asst., Development Serv1ces Dept. John Fraser, Intern, Development Serv1ces Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR Cha1rman Sharp requested each Consent Calendar 1tem be cons1dered separately. 1. MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 1989 e MOTION by Jessner to approve the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on Minutes of March 15, 1989 as presented; SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 2. PLAN REVIEW 4-89 515 OCEAN AVENUE Staff Reoort No staff report was presented on Plan ReV1ew 4-88 because 1t was placed on the Consent Calendar. Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Jessner sa1d he wanted an "automob1le park1ng only" cond1t1on placed on the approval because th1S 1S tandem park1ng. Publ1C Hear1ng The appl1cant was not present. th1S project. No one spoke 1n for or aga1nst MOTION by Jessner to approve Plan ReV1ew 4-89 Wl th the following conditlon lncluded: e "The parklng spaces withln the garage can only be used for automoblle parklng." SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .. e Page 2 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes - Aprll 5, 1989 3. PLAN REVIEW 5-89 219 CENTRAL staff Report No staff report was presented because thlS ltem lS on the Consent Calendar. Commlsslon Comments Mr. Jessner questloned the posslblllty of another parklng space belng added at the back of the property. Mr. Curtls sald there lS an exterlor stalrwell where that parklng spot could have been added. Mr. Jessner asked lf the deck were cantllevered out and the area paved, and the stalrs were reversed, could lt be used for parklng? ThlS property does not have enough parklng. PubllC Hearlng Cllff Mock * Long Beach. CA Mr. Mock lntroduced hlmself as the draftsman for thls proJect. He sald there lS a stalrway plus a deck, supported by posts, that comes out further than the stalrs. He sald he dldn't brlng hlS plan or measurements and would have to recheck these to see lf a parklng space could be added. e Mr. Jessner asked about the area that was used as a bootlegged unlt (at the back) and the maln unlt (In the front) --- how lS that gOlng to be opened uP? Mr. Mock sald the slte plan shows the back unl t should be connected to the front unl t accesslble only by that openlng. ThlS openlng was gOlng to be a door but they sald they dldn 't want a door, Just a contlnuous openlng. It's stlll under conslderatlon by the owner. Mr. Jessner asked lf he would agree to whatever could be worked out wlth staff and that lt can't be converted back agaln. Mr. Mock sald yes. Joyce Cralg * 219 Central Ms. Cralg, the owner and appllcant, added that a patlo area of cement (extends from the alleyway down to the front of the property) would have to be removed to make a parklng space. Ms. Cralg sald "thlS lS the way the unlt was when I purchased It'' referrlng to the bootlegged unlt. Staff recommends an arch and she has no objectlon to an arch. MOTION by Jessner to approve Plan Revlew 5-89 subJect to staff's reviewlng, wlth the appllcant, the posslblllty of puttlng In a th1rd parklng space (thlS lS not mandatory). Also that the openlng between the two areas (that staff has discussed in the staff report as be1ng a potential problem) be resolved between staff and the appl1canti SECOND Rullo. e MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 e e e , Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes - Apr1l 5, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-88 SPAGHETTINI RESTAURANT 3005 OLD RANCH PARKWAY RESOLUTION NO. 1535 Staff Report Barry Curt1s de11vered the staff report which 1S a request by app11cant, Laur1e Neuse, to extend 1ndef1n1tely an on-sale beer, w1ne, and d1st1lled sp1r1ts l1cense to an eX1st1ng restaurant. Comm1ss1on Comments There were no comments. Pub11C Hear1ng The app11cant was not present. aga1nst th1S proJect. No one spoke 1n favor of or MOTION by Rullo to approve Condl.t1onal Use Perlut 1-88 through the adopt 1. on of Resolut1on No. 1535; SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2-88 THE SOUP EXCHANGE 3001 OLD RANCH PARKWAY RESOLUTION NO. 1536 staff Report Barry Curtis gave the staff report. It 1S a request by Souper Corporat1on to extend 1ndef1n1tely an on-sale beer and W1ne l1cense to The Soup Exchange Restaurant. Commiss1on Comments There were no Comm1SS1on Comments. Pub11c Hear1ng The app11cant was not present. proJect. No one spoke forjaga1nst th1s MOTION by Suggs to approve Condl.tl.onal Use Permit 2-88 through the adopt1on of Resolut1on No. 1536; SECOND by Rullo. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 e Page 4 - Plann1ng COmm1SS10n M1nutes - Apr1l 5, 1989 6. CUP 3-88 RED LOBSTER RESTAURANT 620 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY RESOLUTION NO. 1537 staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report. The appl1cant, General M1lls Restaurants, Inc. lS request1ng an 1ndef1n1te extension of an on-sale beer, W1ne and d1st1lled sp1r1ts llcense for the Red Lobster at 620 Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway. Comm1ss1on Comments There were no Commiss1on comments. Publ1C Hear1ng The appl1cant was not present. project. No one spoke forjaga1nst th1S MOTION by Rullo to approve Cond1 t10nal Use Perm.l t 3-88 by the adoptlon of Resolution No. 1537; SECOND by Jessner. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 e 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2-89 VARIANCE 2-89 143 MAIN STREET RESOLUTION NO. 1540 RESOLUTION NO. 1541 staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report and addressed the changes 1n the park1ng requ1rement. Appl1cant, Nader Tahv1ldar1, lS request1ng a beer, W1ne and d1st1lled sp1r1ts llcense V1a CUP 2- 89. He lS also request1ng a prov1s1on of less than the required on-s1te park1ng V1a Var1ance 2-89. Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Jessner asked Barry curtis 1f this act10n would el1m1nate the former CUPs (CUP 19-84 and CUP 22-84). Mr. Curt1s sa1d no--- that CUP 19-84 and CUP 22-84 would rema1n w1th CUP 2-89 be1ng the f1nal act1on. Add1t1onally, pr10r Var1ance 15-84 w1ll rema1n and Var1ance 2-89 w1ll be the f1nal act1on. Mr. Curt1s sa1d the correct procedure was not to el1m1nate the old act1ons. Barry Curt1s expla1ned to the Comm1SS1on that Var1ance 2-89, add1ng 15 park1ng spaces, would be amend1ng Var1ance 15-84 Wh1Ch prov1ded 3 spaces. Mr. Curt1s sa1d he would pay 1n-l1eu park1ng for 15 add1t1onal spaces; he currently pays for 3 spaces. e e e e , Page 5 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes - Apr1l 5, 1989 Publ1C Hear1ng Nader Tahv1ldar1 * Rossmoor Mr. Tahv1ldar1 1ntroduced h1mself as the appl1cant. He sa1d he agreed to Var1ance 2-89' s requ1rement for 18 1n-l1eu park1ng spaces. He asked 1f 1n-l1eu park1ng appl1ed to all bus1nesses 1n the C1ty and was told yes. No one from the audience spoke 1n favorjaga1nst th1s proJect. MOTION by Rullo to approve Cond1.tional Use Perm1.t 2-89 through the adopt1on of Resolut1on No. 1540; SECOND by Jessner. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 MOTION by Rullo to approve Var1ance 2-89 through the adopt1on of Resolut1.on No. 1541; SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 SCHEDULED MATTERS 8. ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF PROGRAM EIR NO. 490 staff Report John Fraser del1vered the staff report after Wh1Ch he 1ntroduced Karen Peters, Orange County Fire Department. Karen Peters * Orange County F1re Department Ms. Peters answered Commiss10n quest10ns by stat1ng that Seal Beach contr1butes 397 tons of hazardous waste to the 114,082 tons or1g1nat1ng 1n Orange County. Twelve out of 28 Orange County c1t1es have approved the Plan to date. Landf1ll bans for untreated hazardous waste have been phased 1n over the last 3 years. May 1990 w1ll br1ng the last landf1ll ban Wh1Ch w1ll bar all untreated hazardous waste to landf1lls --- of Wh1Ch there are two rema1n1ng 1n Cal1forn1a --- one 1n Santa Barbara County and one 1n K1ngs County. Currently 20% of the 114, 000 tons of the Orange County waste stream 1S gOlng to those landf1lls. Orange County wants th1s type of procedure 1nst1tuted at the local level so that Orange County can address e Page 6 - Planning CommlSSlon Mlnutes - Aprll 5, 1989 the permlttlng process and siting crlterla for hazardous waste treatment faclllty as an alternatlve to dumplng ln the land untreated. All 58 countles ln Callfornla are gOlng thru this same process slmultaneously. None of the cltles have ln thelr local land use permltting procedures a way to entertaln a proposal for thlS type of faclllty. They have no way to Judge whether a hazardous waste faclllty lS good or bad for thelr cornrnunlty. A city can't reJect a proposal slmply because they dldn't llke It. It would have to be on the Justlfled crlterla. It sets up a process that lnvolves the publlC ln declslon maklng lmmedlately. Through AB 2948, the mlnute a proposal comes through, the Clty Councll or the Orange County Board of Supervlsors sends a Notlce of Intent, a pre-appllcatlon public hearlng lS held, the Board of Supervisors or the local Clty Councll must appolnt a local Assessment Commlttee WhlCh lrnrnedlately lnvolves members of the publlC, envlronmental communlty members, members of lndustry to advlse elther the Clty Councll or the Board of Supervlsors. e There wlll be controversy... but we do need to evaluate them falrly as Orange County generates 114,000 tons throughout the County. Who has Jurlsdlction? The State. The Plan wlll go from Orange County to the Department of Health Servlces, they wlll "bless It'' yea or nea, lt wlll be overseen by the Offlce of Permlt ReVlew at the State level. The Federal Government has total/complete control of Federally owned land. We would have no control whatsoever. Who prepares the 21 sltlng crlterlai would the Clty be lnvolved ln thlS? If the proposal lS wlthln your Jurlsdlctlon as an lncorporated area, the Clty's lead staff would be the Clty'S Plannlng Department. They would prepare an EIR speclflcally assoclated wlth that proJect. Could the Clty of Seal Beach be forced to accept a hazardous waste slte they dldn't want? If certaln ltems were negatlve and couldn't be mltlgated? Could we be forced to accept It? Rlght now, nelther the State nor the County nor any munlclpallty lS proposlng to own or operate these facllltles. We are hoplng that by provldlng a permlttlng process and some assurance to the prlvate development cornrnunlty that we wlll falrly evaluate the proposals and e e Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes - Apr11 5, 1989 that proposals w111 be rece1ved from the pr1vate 1ndustry. The local Jur1sd1ct10n w111 be 1n control of that process regardless of who the proponent 1S. Should you turn a proposal down because your EIR was wr1tten a certa1n way, or that cr1ter1a weren't met to your sat1sfact10n, that appeals process could be k1cked 1n to reVlew whether you made the local land use declslon based on good techn1cal 1nformat10n or whether or not lt was merely a "not In my backyard" type of syndrome. There 1S a 90-day per10d by law by Wh1Ch you and the C1ty Counc11 for elther tak1ng actlon on the proJect (no/yes) or a no act10n whatsoever and lt w111 be deemed approved. It could st111 be forced upon us, even 1f we d1dn't approve th1s, lf 50% of the populat10n of the 1ncorporated area and 50% of the c1t1es In Orange County vote yes. The Board of Superv1sors has already approved the Plan. The un1ncorporated area 1S represented In that. So lt does not have to go to a vote of the general populat10n of the County. e We need to have control at the local level. She would llke to see Orange County and all of ltS 28 clt1es stand together because the clt1es represent the largest part of the populat10n. It's 1mportant that we st1ck together and make a stand to the State Department of Health SerV1ces and let them know what we're dOlng, we have a plan that we can llve w1th. They are the f1nal approv1ng body. Should they dec1de that our cr1terla are too restr1ctlve ... that we may get to a legal test of whether or not our Plan 1S really valld. Whether we're trYlng to exclude, through the use of slt1ng cr1ter1a, or preclude the sltlng of any type of faclllty wlthln the County... we're worked for 2 years to make the slt1ng crlterla as t1ght as we could w1th1n the technlcal boundarles but st111 bellevlng we could permlt someth1ng somewhere. There 1S a reVlew per10d every three years. Barry Curt1s advlsed the Comm1ss10n that thelr actlon ton1ght would be only adv1sory to the Clty Councll. e MOTION by Jessner to approve the Plan and certlficatlon of the Program EIR 1/490 by the adoptlon of Resolutlon No. 1534 and recommend approval to the Clty Councll and to recommend that the Cl ty of Seal Beach Envlronmental QuaIl ty Control Board reVlew thls Plan and EIR and glve thelr oplnlon to the Clty Counclli SECOND by Rullo. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 e e e .. Page 8 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes - Aprll 5, 1989 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communlcatlons from the audlence. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Jessner asked staff lf there was an ordlnance or POllCY wlthln the Clty for flnes when bootleg unlts are dlscovered? Mr. Curtls sald no --- no flnes --- they are made to rectlfy the sltuatlon. Mr. Jessner recommended to the CommlSSlon that thlS should be dlscussed and looked lnto as a means of deterrlng lllegal bootlegged unl ts. Mr. Rullo sald we'd have to have a full-tlme Code enforcement offlcer. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Sharp adJourned the meetlng at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submltted, , (\-~~-~~ ~n Flllmann Secretary Department of Development Servlces *** THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *** The Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of Aprll 5, 1989 were ~~~rove~ b_y the Plannlng CommlSSlon on Aprll ~, 1989. ~~ ~ '\